The LP putting reform pressure on the GOP or the DP can make sense, because the LP's official principles are very distinct from those of the nanny state parties, and there are natural flows from their voter clusters to ours that we want to encourage. Nobody here has identified a difference between the official LP and BTP principles, nor between the goals/direction of the LP's million+ regular distinct voters and those of the N thousand who have ever voted for a BTP ballot line.

Electoral organizing for a cluster of voters desiring the same goal/direction is a natural monopoly, in which high fixed costs and low marginal costs lead to economies of scale that make competition inefficient. The purpose of general elections for us in the freedom movement is to measure electoral demand for more freedom. It's silly to try to use general elections to settle intramural disputes like whether to restore the 2004 platform, or whether nominating Bob Barr was a good idea. If the BTP thinks the LP is unsalvageable and needs to be replaced, then have the courage to say so. But spare us this claptrap that you're using general elections as a "market" to "efficiently" settle intramural disputes. Look at all the socialist parties and candidates that run for president. Is "competition" helping their cause? The people here follow politics pretty keenly. Don't insult their intelligence.

P.S. Keep in mind that what I'm saying here is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_against_interest. If you take my advice and fold up the BTP, that only increases the number of LP radicals that I have to caucus against. But that's OK, because radicals give the LP disproportionate numbers of quality activists and candidates, who seem very willing to tone down their radicalism when facing the public.